▲ 144 points
back
57 comments
Minimum Griftable Product - a product that overpromises based on what it currently does, may never end up being delivered, but technically still possible given enough funding. "Lovable" is a word to better describe hijacking the users' reptilian brain signaling to prefer your product design regardless of substance.
Does that describe what you're doing? No? Buy some creepy instagram ads with more VC funding. Maybe that's what you need to inject more hacking the growth. To spread the love. Made lovingly in a cubicle farm by 100% real humans, not leetcode bots.
> I once lived near a cafe that served coffee, breakfast, lunch, dinner, and at night turned into a jazz bar with fancy cocktail drinks. They also had a retro shop at the back of the cafe selling all kinds of vintage knick-knacks. Their focus was all over the place, they couldn’t even make decent coffee. Less than a year after opening, the do-it-all coffee place shut its doors.
Years ago I once played a gig with my band in a place that was a coffee shop during the day, a restaurant in the early evening and a live music venue late evenings.
It was a delightful feature, not a silly bug, in a very small rural town in the Canadian Prairies (kind of our version of the US mid west).
Context matters. Especially in an article about “lovable”.
Somehow the entire article struck me as quite flimsy, just a small step above content mill material.
A cafe that turns into a bar is pretty common I thought - at least in Europe. Maybe licensing is different to the US?
I like the approach.
For myself, I have always loathed the MVP concept, and that has not made me fans; especially amongst this crowd. I've learned to just bite my tongue, and do things the way I do.
I'm in the later stages of a fairly ambitious native Swift UIKit iOS app (around 40 screens). It has been in progress for about 18 months (over two years, if you consider the backend, which I also wrote).
During that time, I have been sharing the built app with the team, using Apple's TestFlight beta-test system. I made my first TestFlight release on October 4, 2020. Since then, I've made around 600 releases. It's abusing the TestFlight process, which is really supposed to be an "end-stage" service, but it's worked well for us, and the Quality of the app is through the roof.
We have also made several massive pivots, and have settled on a UX that we think users will love, and will address the needs of the community that it Serves (It's a free app, for a non-profit).
I couldn't even imagine this being out there, during the last year or so (when we first thought we had a "viable" product). It would have completely destroyed any credibility we had (and we actually have quite a bit).
> will address the needs of the community that it Serves
How do you know that it does address their needs and how do you know that they care?
> It's a free app, for a non-profit).
And what makes doing it worth two years of your life?
Like I said, it doesn’t win me fans, in this community.
> How do you know that it does address their needs and how do you know that they care?
Let’s just say that I know the target demographic fairly well, having been a member of it for over 40 years, and having written a major, worldwide, infrastructure for it (over a period of ten years -also, on a volunteer basis).
I eat my own dog food. I use the software I’ve written, pretty much daily, along with thousands of others, worldwide. In fact, this app uses that infrastructure, and integrates it with a simple social graph, so you could say the app is actually the result of over a dozen years of work.
Also, the development process I use is highly testable. TestFlight[0] is, for all intents and purposes, a “mini App Store.” The app is a full-fat release, and is constantly being vetted by Apple. It’s not some crappy lash-up, like so many MVPs. It’s quite amazing, that it has been used constantly, since one month after I started coding.
I can write a lot of really good code, really quickly. What I released to TestFlight, in October 2020, could have easily been considered “The heck with it, let’s ship” by many corporations. Even six months later, when we originally thought we had our first “shippable” app, it was still pretty pathetic. What we have now, is something we are all quite happy with. We still have some months of testing and preparation to go, before we have our first public beta.
Brand damage is something that many geeks don’t understand, but is absolutely devastating, and almost impossible to repair. Even if there are some initial stumbles and hiccups (almost guaranteed), it won’t be an E.L.E. for the project or the team, and it won’t destroy our credibility. Even if it’s a complete flop (which it won’t be -I guarantee), people will still take our team seriously, so we will still be able to keep trying. I fully expect it to take several months (or longer) to mature, after we release it, but it is designed to be “infrastructure-level,” daily use, software. Good things take time. We have no problem with a “slow burn.”
Also, the software that I write Serves a fairly sensitive demographic. Security, Privacy, and Accessibility are of paramount importance. Failure in these areas could have severe and detrimental impact on people’s lives. It’s not hyperbole, at all, to say people’s lives depend on the Quality of my work. I can’t afford to “move fast and break things,” as said “things” could be people’s lives.
There’s a reason that I’ve repeated “people’s lives,” so often, above. I think it needs to be driven home.
> And what makes doing it worth two years of your life?
Two years is nothing (see 40 years, and 10 years, above). I’ve written software, professionally, and personally, that has lasted decades. I’m fairly adept at playing the long game (not particularly valued, in today’s tech industry).
Also, the software that I have written personally, has the potential to make a major impact on people’s lives. It’s pretty important stuff; not some “leisure/entertainment” app for bored yuppies. I take my job pretty seriously.
Some things are worth that kind of effort. If I had to explain, you wouldn’t understand.
Parent is working on scheduling tools for NA meetings.
Yes some things are important and can’t be broken without some serious real world consequences.
MVP is “the first thing that stick”. The method to get there should be meticulously engineered to cut as much iteration time between prototypes as possible. When your ugly prototype shows strong traction by its own and test users are asking you to keep the prototype then you know you have a rough diamond to cut.
Obviously when you have a sizeable user base, know the market very well and your market isn’t that much competitive you are at an advantage.
Beware of market expertise ego and dogfooding as it only reinforce your expertise and biases. Bring industry newcomers to your project for feedback, it’s the only way to make sure your expertise doesn’t make your product only valuable for yourself.
> The app is a full-fat release, and is constantly being vetted by Apple.
Huh? How does Apple know what your users want?
What you don't consider about the MVP is that you can release early/release often and then re-evaluate and improve upon it based on data, not your mind or guesses.
Taking 18 months to release it might cause you to waste a lot of valuable time with features/requirements that does not deliver any real value to your customer, and the competitors can gain this space delivering a much less complete product, with less quality, but with the right features because of MVP concepts.
Not teasing in any way, but just 2 cents to consider, as I see a LOT of issues with the MVP approach.
Sorry that went dead. It was a perfectly valid point, but I suspect that the ”What you don’t consider about the MVP” is what earned the demerits (It comes across as an insulting assumption. As it turns out, I actually do consider it, but don’t agree). We’re not really supposed to do that. If you had prefaced with ”The classic rationale for MVP is…”, it probably would have passed muster.
I understand the concept (It’s the standard MVP talking point), but read my response, above[0]. I am big on Quality. I also don’t think that we (software developers) get some kind of “get out of jail free” card, exempting us from the same rules that every other discipline has had to follow, since the dawn of time.
It’s entirely possible to do it without delivering shoddy product. People have been doing exactly that, for centuries. There’s a long, long history of “guessing well.” Steve Jobs did that (He also “guessed badly,” frequently, but his good ideas worked out well). History is full of products and initiatives that worked well (and that didn’t). I don’t believe that it’s possible to democratize creativity. Some of us are more creative than others. I think that I'm “in the middle,” myself. I don’t really come up with “groundbreaking” ideas, like Steve Jobs. I tend to devise better ways to address classic problems, and actually have a fairly good track record, there.
In any case, I just wrote about my approach, to software that I write. I wasn’t insisting that anyone else do it my way. If people don’t like it, they can vote with their feet. Folks have also been doing that, throughout human history.
In my case, I am literally incapable of releasing a product that I don’t consider to be of the best Quality possible. I guess you could call it a “disability,” on my part (but I don’t).
I’ve never been particularly interested in making a ton of money (most of my work is free, for nonprofits), or “going viral.” I have a craftsman approach to my work. I’m not competing with anyone else. In the past, I have actually withdrawn my own products, when others have developed ones that I considered better suited for our users. The stakes are too high for infighting.
The book "The Lean Startup" by Eric Ries helped me understand what an MVP is about. It is about learning. So 'viable' doesn't mean someone can barely use it to do X. It is more like an experiment that should answer a question (an hypothesis).
So an MVP can be crappy, as long as it helps to answer the question it is supposed to answer. The lovable part should come, once you understand your environment and can build something that people actually need.
Viable doesn't usually mean a thing is only just or barely sufficient. It usually means a thing is at least sufficient. It means a thing is more than good enough to be viable. The question "is it viable?" is used to find out if something is at the point of being "good enough" or greater, and something more than good enough will still be "perfectly viable".
"Minimal Viable" doesn't extend to great, but it does also reach perfect viability. Describe something as "barely viable" suggests its not quite viable. Viability is all about passing the threshold of being in fact viable.
As viable is a binary qualifier, the "Minimal" part more intelligibly constrains the "Product". Its a minimal product that is yet viable, not a product with minimal viability.
In the same vein "Minimal Lovable Product", shouldn't mean a product which someone could only barely love :]
That doesn't sound like a "product" to me nor does it sound "viable." That sounds like a regular old prototype.
I think of prototype as something to show that you can build something. No end user uses a prototype. End users use MVPs. I agree with GP
It’s almost like it’s a pedantic argument from the start
When I read these kinds of posts it feels like I'm reading a monks treatise on how to fall madly, passionately in love. It's like, really hopeful, but I don't think great software is made in this way. It seems to always start out with something unaccountably useful, and building out the business-y stuff comes second. This post feels like it was written for businesses that are fungible software experiments ("just add money!")
Let me know when you would like me to invent yet another word to call the same thing. How's Minimum Promising Product?
If MVP does not solve a real problem, it does not validate the correct hypothesis, so what the post describes as an MVP that is not MLP is not an MVP.
And an MLP executed to be not MVP would be a thing built to be built, or taking unnecessarily risky bets spending unnecessary cost.
Cut the crap with fighting words with words. If the community used the word MVP to help introduce a more useful concept, real builders focus on executing it correctly, to the best of our ability, giving the inventors fair credit and most charitable interpretation. Alas, we have content marketers among us, and those who failed and wish to blame it on being given wrong instructions to follow, inventing empty words like MLP.
Why are you so upset about words? if you don’t like a word, don’t use it or make up your own! it’s a beautiful thing.
the trigger is recently joining an organization or getting a new CEO or manager that uses these cringy aspirational unnecessary words
and listening to the entire internet say "if you don't like one tiny aspect of your work environment, its a huge red flag for a bunch of other stuff so just leave!" as if such choice in the matter is really there and that the next organization doesn't have some other tiny cringy thing
so then if you ignore that advice, you're stuck with the childish babble that the people in your organization use to cope
A word you create because you don’t like another word is called a blortle. I just made it up.
Not a big fan of the article, but don’t dismiss the concept. I’m not sure if my former employer coined “MLP” or not, but we certainly used it extensively; I generally would describe it to clients as a “vertical slice” of the vision that is just wide enough to solve a single meaningful problem and deep enough to be viable as a standalone product. The MLP approach gave design a tight focus on the product and service experience that ensured they couldn’t blue-sky the design, let development get a full product out the door in a reasonable rapid schedule and with decent QA bounds, and ensured the business had something that that could be market-tested and form the basis of further growth.
You have to think about the long-term “thriveability” of the MLP and how it fits into the business model, so it’s not a free lunch, but I’ve found it to be an effective way to avoid the usual pitfalls of boiling the ocean, early abstraction, unmaintainable scope creep, and so on.
I'm really coming to dislike this type of article. It's vague platitudes rather than a practitioner who has earned scars and thus has the experience to describe the nitty gritty why and how beyond the vague recommendations.
For example:
1. Has the Userpilot team failed at building and MVP and succeeded with an MLP? If so what did they learn and why?
2. Lots of people have succeeded with an MVP approach. They describe a handful of things you can do wrong when building an MVP... but what if you DON'T do those things that they claim lead to MVP failure?
3. Digging into one of the recommendations - don't sacrifice delighters. They talk about how they wouldn't include the Asana unicorn in their MLP and end with "balance delighters with effort". Fine. But HOW do you do that? What framework can you provide ME to do that?
This smacks of a writer doing a Google Research Project to offer up hand-wavy advice. 0/10 would not recommend.
I agree. FWIW this is a much better article on the same topic by someone who actually has earned scars. It also contains much more concrete advice:
https://review.firstround.com/dont-serve-burnt-pizza-and-oth...
> Minimum Lovable Products (MLPs) add more focus on the idea that whatever you’re putting out in the market has to solve a real-world problem from the beginning
Is this not already the definition of an MVP? As they put it - a skeleton that doesn't solve anything - isn't really a viable product...
I think this falls into the problem of building something that is potentially interesting.
If the problem is hair on fire bad, UX doesn't matter.
> If the problem is hair on fire bad, UX doesn't matter.
Just replying to make sure you know how profoundly true this is. And if you want the secret to mega success: solve a hair on fire problem with great ux and you will win almost automatically.
How do you identify hair-on-fire problems?
I don't get this writing copy thing. It first seemed like the tweet was quoted and captioned "hard pass" with a repulsed gif maybe because a copywriter doesn't even know how to spell their job title, saying writing copy instead? But the article keeps using the word so that can't be it.
Not sure if copywriting (with or without space) is a thing but copywriter and copyediting is: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/copywriting
Writing copy, no idea what that's supposed to be: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/writing%20copy
Anyone here in the know of this jargon? And how is it related to "MLP"s (to stay in the custom jargosphere)?
"Copy," in the news and publicity world, basically means "text." It is old printing and newsroom jargon. See definition 4: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/copy
"Writing copy" just means writing text for publication. "Copywriting" means the same, though I don't think most copyeditors would let the word "copywriting" go to print.
I think the terms is are used relatively clearly in the context of the article, so long as you know that "copy" means text to be published.
> The MVP failed because “minimum” was taken too seriously, and “viability” is often dropped from the equation.
If people don't apply a concept well, does that mean we need a new lovely concept? What prevents it from being misunderstood as well?
I LOVE this concept. Condenses so many missed points about MVP into a very simple acronym: Encapsulates succinctly "people wanting this product", making it "good enough to recommend to friends", etc. etc.
> focus on the idea that whatever you’re putting out in the market has to solve a real-world problem from the beginning
Minimum monetizable product?
Too many people fall into the trap that an MVP is meant for the end user. The V stands for viable. You are simply testing if something is actually possible to do and fits a real use case or not. The consumers are:
1. Yourself - was it just a stupid thought in your head or actually something useful?
2. Investors - see this isn’t just a pipe dream but an actual working product. Now give me money.
3. Maybe a very small set of actual users to act as a focus group and tell you how stupid you are.
Once an idea has passed validation by 1, 2 and 3, that’s when development can start. That’s when you build an MLP or alpha or beta or whatever else you want to call it.
If you think you are just going to slap a logo on a MVP and start charging $10/month for it, no shit people will laugh you off.
Seems to be popular at the moment to say “MVP has failed” without showing any evidence how.
Just another attempt to kick start one more senseless hype cycle for no good reason
Minimum _sellable_ products are the best
Recipe for wasting time. Build something people hate but will pay for.
So something that you barely love ...
Doesn't sound any better, to be honest.
It could be something you love but which is only barely a product. My (almost) 1 year old could qualify -- very lovable but there really isn't much of a market. ;-)
Better call it "Lovable Minimum Product" then.
Minimum viable and minimum lovable should be the same thing.
Obligatory:
A Minimal Viable Product needs to actually be viable
https://uxdesign.cc/a-minimal-viable-product-needs-to-actual...
Maybe we can just call it what it is...
A prototype.
A concept value test.
A minimum viable product.
A thing a user will pay for.
Finding product-market fit.
Or simply put... customer development.
I do hate that the acronyms get overused by people who don't know what they are talking about. But I don't think we have to reinvent the wheel by changing a letter and giving it different meaning when it's the same thing.
The two great points hinted in the article are "outcomes over outputs" and "jobs to be done". Everything else is kinda meh.